It bans cloud seeding and geoengineering. Passing this off as a ‘ban on chemtrails’ is deliberately dishonest.
a Class B misdemeanor for the injection, release or dispersal of “a chemical, a chemical compound, a substance, or an apparatus into the atmosphere within or above this state for the purpose of affecting the weather, including temperature, climate, and intensity of sunlight.
Should be easy, considering they don’t exist to begin with.
Depends on your definition of “chemical”. Technically all trails are chem trails, including hiking trails.
I can think of light trails that aren’t chemical in nature
Shush. We’re this close to getting them to tax contrails, which would effectively be a tax on jet fuel.
No, you can fly to avoid the creation of contrails. Ironically, would actually be a boon for the environment, since contrail clouds are massive greenhouse generators https://youtube.com/shorts/qBPwloCdRKw
I thought they were just condensation?
They are, but clouds disproportionately reflect IR. Basically the energy comes in as a mix of high, medium and low energy light. The earth re-radiates as low energy IR. Clouds trap this keeping the warmth (and energy) in.
Clouds and CO2 act in a similar way.
Gonna call BS on that short. Clouds cool the atmosphere because they reflect incoming visible light. Clouds also absorb infrared light, causing a greenhouse effect, but they also do that when they’re not condensed into clouds. Their infrared absorption depends primarily on their composition, which doesn’t change. Contrails are basically equivalent to cloud seeding, which is a method of cooling the atmosphere by increasing cloud cover.
until they decide enforcement means no contrails at all and suddenly they’ve found a new and exciting way to economically ruin the country.
Contrails are mostly water vapour that’s condensed due to the hot exhaust of airplane engines.
They are certainly not completely avoidable, they are likely inescapable without sacrificing significant fuel efficiencies (eg: all methods stealth fighters use to suppress or mask their exhaust heat signature)… which would negate any benefits to global warming.
P. s. I’m not going to watch a YouTube video that could be a few paragraphs of textual explanation, because it’ll no doubt be eight times longer than it needs to be for the benefit of more ad money or promotion in the almighty algorithm.
I’m not going to watch a YouTube video that could be a few paragraphs of textual explanation, because it’ll no doubt be eight times longer than it needs to be for the benefit of more ad money or promotion in the almighty algorithm.
The linked one is a short video with a duration of 02:37. There’s no padding in this one. Naturally, you can’t actually get all of the nuances of the full-duration video, which also can’t cover the full nuances of the study itself that it’s based on (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/ad310c).
Pop science videos making studies accessible to the general public are good, actually. I recommend that you stop being dismissive of them. Had you actually put in the time, you wouldn’t have posted things that are in direct contradiction with the latest science on the subject, spreading misinformation in the process.
I’ve got no interest in watching even 2.5 minute YouTube videos when I can read the text of the same content in 45 seconds. Instructional videos can be great and valuable, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. There are a wealth of crap pop science videos on YouTube that misrepresent studies.
The study is interesting, but it’s a feasibility study data utilizing a theoretical models - there are a lot of assumptions here. If they or other researchers go on to perform trials using their proposed flight adjustments to the autopilot software and validate it works, great! Until then, it’s very far from settled science. Here is another recent study that proposes the main problem is incompletely-burned fuel which causes soot particles that sustain the contrails in the atmosphere for much longer than contrails from low-soot contrails, which quickly diaperse. This is an emerging field of study with few published studies and varying ideas on how to resolve issues.
Maybe if people want to share emerging scientific information that’s important to them on a written forum they should put in the time to look to more valuable text sources, instead of dropping YouTube links with overconfident assertions that will put off people from watching them, eg, “contrails are completely avoidable”.
You have remarkable audacity for continuing to argue the point while also boasting about how you’ll ignore any information that isn’t spoon fed to you in your format of choice. Sooner or later, you’re going to miss something that way and make an ass of yourself, if that didn’t already just happen in front of our eyes.
God forbid I actually read sources, and prefer reading to taking heads on a video platform that is designed to waste people’s time in endless content crawls.
You call me audacious yet here you are stepping into a discussion to try your best to belittle and chastise an internet stranger with a different opinion.
That YouTube Short seems to be a valid one. It’s by someone who (according to his own words) has a PhD in atmospheric physics. Basically, he says that contrails causes global warming by preventing heat from escaping from Earth, and that contrails are mostly only formed when a plane flies through a cold humid patch. By simply re-routing planes around these cold patches, the contrails could be reduced.
By simply re-routing planes around these cold patches, the contrails could be reduced.
And routes now are generally chosen to be the most fuel-efficient, subject to regulatory constraints such as avoiding overflight of areas of high population density. So any alternate path will be longer and burn more fuel.
According to this one study [1] that focused on Japanese airspace, 2.2% of the flights causes 80% of all contrail energy forcing (EF).
A small-scale strategy of selectively diverting 1.7% of the fleet could reduce the contrail EF by up to 59.3% [52.4, 65.6%], with only a 0.014% [0.010, 0.017%] increase in total fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. A low-risk strategy of diverting flights only if there is no fuel penalty, thereby avoiding additional long-lived CO2 emissions, would reduce contrail EF by 20.0% [17.4, 23.0%].
The re-routing can simply be achieved by changing the flight elevation by 2000 feet one or the other direction.
[1] Teoh, Roger et al. “Mitigating the Climate Forcing of Aircraft Contrails by Small-Scale Diversions and Technology Adoption.” Environmental science & technology vol. 54,5 (2020): 2941-2950. doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b05608
As said in the video everyone refused to watch, it doesn’t require all new routes but occasional 1-2% course deviations or altitude changes for a minority of flights. It’s also claimed that contrails have far, far more warming effect than any additional carbon that might be emitted by this. But hey, he posted it in a video so FUCK HIM, RITE?
rite!
Pretty sad that your comment gets so much attention while dismissing a huge breakthrough in research.
Its not a huge breakthrough in research, mate - its a feasibility study. Its claims are promising, but until its tested in the real world it’s just interesting, not a breakthrough.
Upvotes don’t mean much, they don’t change the ranking of comments like on worse social media like Facebook or Reddit. Don’t worry about them. I’ve seen very useful and valuable comments downvoted to heck and vice-versa.
Maybe we shouldn’t have to SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON to have a discussion on the internet, or sit through an ad read for Brilliant or whatever
And maybe people dismiss comments that dont get liked and assume the answer that gets liked is “more correct”. Yes I wish it would work without the likes systemy but in reality 90% of the internet is AI slop and misinformation.
In his defense, the comment didn’t say shit about breakthrough research, it said “watch this”.
Say what you want to say and people won’t dismiss it. Link to something random and who knows.
Do we seriously have to listen to people air their gripes about internet video anytime a link is shared? Jesus Christ.
If YouTube links were banned, we wouldn’t.
How are we this stupid?
Republicans are in control
“fascists” is a more apt description
3-4 decades of purposefully undermining public education
More like 5-7 decades… “anti-nerd” culture has been popular since about the 50’s
